Can you be a little more specific about what you're ultimately hoping to build, or learn? I'd generally agree with the commenter who suggested you pick a simple problem and then try to solve it. That's the only way to understand where these bits and pieces you've learned fit into the broader picture. I'm getting the sense that that's what you're after here, at least initially -- a general understanding/overview of how this stuff all comes together in the real world? Is that right, or no?
Ultimately, I would love if I could build a very basic prototype (of a web app) so that I can scrappily build a product to test. I recognize that that is not an easy task and would take a significant investment to get to proficiency, let alone mastery. But as someone that is analytical but not "technical", it can be exceedingly frustrating to have an idea that you want to implement and create but you don't have the know-how to do so. So I'm trying to find a way to teach myself to fish without becoming a master fisherman.
And in the process I also hope that I can become a more effective entrepreneur because I will be able to communicate not only intent and design to the engineers, but appreciate the feasibility and development path.
It's hard to offer more specific direction without having at least a vague idea of what type of web app you're trying to build. If you're looking for a "read X book" or "do Y tutorial" type of answer, there simply isn't one, not for what you're trying to achieve. The answer is, learn as much as you need to in order to start building stuff, even if you don't know what the hell you're doing at first. When you get stuck, search around on StackOverflow and elsewhere; if that doesn't work, seek out help from your local Python/Ruby/whatever Meetup and try to find other people willing to teach (you seem genuinely curious and respectful so that should make things a little easier). Just remember that you're a smart person, so when (not if) you're made to feel like an idiot for not knowing some silly basic thing, don't back down. Keep searching, keep building, keep asking questions until you get there.
I'm far from an expert but I've been through this. I was in a very similar position to you less than a year ago and have since then gone from absolute zero technical knowledge to becoming a shitty-but-enthusiastic self-taught hacker. I'm happy to chat more specifically if you want to message me directly (first name: Linda; last name: last 4 letters in my HN username; email: firstlast@gmail).
Thank you for the thoughtful response - that's in fact the type of direction I was looking for - even just learning of StackOverflow has been helpful... and I may take you up on the offer to connect further.
It is quite unfortunate that I know how daunting it can be to venture into this world.
If you already have some experience (as you mentioned in another comment) in whatever language it is, stick to that language. Find a good introductory book / tutorial that explains data structures. Whichever introductory book you find (I'm biased towards books - but each person learns a different way, whatever works for you, go with that) will teach you enough to UNDERSTAND what you are coding.
You'll learn how each line relates to the other. You'll learn how to manipulate that which you are building. How one thing relates to the other within the constraints of certain laws which were created to be able to communicate with the machine.
As you progress, you'll see how other people have already done certain things so that they won't need to repeat themselves later on. These functions, whenever available, can be used by anyone.
When you learn data structures, you can grab these functions to ease your own coding. But to be able to use them, you'll need to know how to manipulate the instructions that are contained within them.
I digress. As I mentioned earlier, I'm new at this. If I'm wrong I am wrong. If I explained stuff you already know, oh well. But it does help myself get a firmer grasp of what I may or may not know.
Totally agree. Of course there is going to be more backlash if this is described as a "replacement." What's wrong with just offering doctors better tools to do their jobs? We offer them surgical tools, why not software tools? That's a less threatening description...but also a less compelling headline.
Depends on how much the intern would be getting out of the experience besides pay. If you're actually teaching/mentoring them, then you don't necessarily need to pay them anything. If you don't have marketing/sales expertise yourselves and therefore "intern" is just a way of saying you don't want to be bound by traditional employment practices, then that's something different altogether, and you're probably not going about this the right way. Why the term "intern"?
This is really great. Obviously, we can't prevent every bad outcome, but I think sometimes people don't realize how little efforts like this actually go a really long way.
YC is starting to take a lot of the right steps. I know for me personally, as a female founder, my attitude has changed a lot in the past 6-8 months (from "I guess I'll keep reading HN & essays because I don't want to miss out on interesting content... but I don't feel good about it, and I'd definitely never apply" -- to now being able to be an unequivocal fan, attending Startup School, etc.).
Honestly, any effort at all is appreciated, although some efforts count for more than others. For instance, the Female Founders conference is fine, but I (and I think a lot of people) probably assign more credibility to efforts that really demonstrate a depth of thought on the issue. Here's a tiny example of what I mean, just from this essay, in fact: I always see VCs and journalists citing to the percent of portfolio companies that have a female founder, and every time I see this, it makes me think they're not really serious about analyzing the dimensions and complexity of the issue ("Out of how many founders TOTAL, not how many companies??"), so the fact that SA at least pointed this out puts this piece above not only other investor posts but also posts by tech journalists -- people whose very job it is to, you know, point this stuff out. That's a tiny example, but to me it counts for a lot more than just boilerplate "we support women blah blah blah." [1]
The same principle probably applies for what kinds of events/projects you sponsor. "Women in tech" conferences are great and all, but the more innovative (and tangibly helpful) the initiative is, the better. I'm not sure what your suggestion/feedback mechanism for this is besides HN and talking to your own portfolio, but it may be worth setting up another channel to get ideas from current non-YC technical women/female founders (maybe anonymously, or at least in a more conducive forum than the HN comment section).
Anyway, just my thoughts. I second the other comments about the importance of race/class diversity, too, but I don't have as much to add on that. (Not that race needed to be tackled in this particular post but the title maybe shouldn't have used the term "diversity" if it's mainly going to be about gender.)
[1] It also affords YC/SA a bit more benefit of the doubt when the post also asserts some, uh, less-well-thought-through things, e.g., that other industries are doing worse than tech on gender issues. (Like who? Who's doing worse, specifically? I literally can't think of a single industry in 2014 America that's doing worse than the startup/tech community [both statistically and anecdotally, as well as based on my own personal experience]. Not even investment banking -- and certainly not medicine, law, academia, or traditional business. It's not helpful to sugarcoat it.)
> "e.g., that other industries are doing worse than tech on gender issues. (Like who? Who's doing worse, specifically?"
Probably no one, or at least no industry of comparable size.
But knowing HN, if Sam made an absolute statement like "we are the worst in diversity", the HN crew will spend the entire ensuing commentary self-importantly arguing whether or not we are literally the worst.
That's a conversation best avoided, as it is entirely irrelevant to the point being made, but this community is fucking pedantic like that when their egos are being challenged.
I think any reasonably sized group of people can reasonably be expected to defend themselves when accused of being literally the worst in some way that matters if they don't think they are, regardless of their level of pedantry. In general, if you're trying to make some other major point in an article, it's best to equivocate on things that you think would be inflammatory and irrelevant.
The human eye detects motion very readily, so this technique would actually be far more perceptible than keeping the modified portion in the same location of the image.
